NationStates Jolt Archive

A couple of threads in the UN forum got me thinking about the death penalty and what sort of impact it really has on crime rates. It also made me wonder if the death penalty is really justice, or just a barbaric form of vengence.

Australia doesn't have the death penalty anymore, and the last execution here was in the late 60s or early 70s (can't quite remember). There is a growing call for it to be reintroduced however, especially after crimes like the Port Arthur shooting. I can't help but wonder if it was reintroduced, if would it bring any benefits besides ensuring the criminal never offended again and saving the taxpayers money by not having to cover the costs of imprisoning him/her for the 10 to 20 years a murderer serves on average in this country.

Then there is the question of martyrdom for the executed. If Saddam Hassain for example is executed, wouldn't that just turn him into a martyr and make his name a rallying cry. Wouldn't life locked behind bars be worse for a man like him than a quick, clean death?

I don't know this for sure, but believe myself that the Oaklahoma bomber insisted on his execution being carried out without appeals because he wanted to become a martyr to his cause.

I'm torn on this subject. My head says the death penalty is justice and the worst murderers deserve nothing less. My heart says the death penalty is nothing but legal vengence and murder in its own right. I used to be firmly against it, but now am starting to feel that in some cases, its justified.

I'm wondering what others think of the death penalty and if it really has an impact on reducing crime. I'm hoping to see enough opinions on both sides, and inbetween, in this thread to make up my own mind on this subject.

Barbaric? De-capitation would be barbaric [ albeit good for crime rates ].

Lethal Injection is hardly barbaric. My point of view on the death sentence is simple, murderers & rapists should be put to death after a maximum & minimum[same] of three years in jail. Not enough to get comfortable - just enough to learn how shitty jail is before having your life ended.

By-the-way : Its "Vengeance"

I can't spell, and am the first to admit that :)

I don't know about the barbaric part. Doesn't taking the life of a criminal, even a serial killer who may deserve it, just make the state as bad as the person they are killing, so couldn't that be seen as barbaric?

Thats the main part I am having a problem with. A murderer takes the life of someone against the will of the victim. In execution, the state takes the life of someone against the will of the victim. The only difference is one killing breaks a law, the other is done under the protection of the law. Killing is killing, isn't it?

I fail to see the justice in that. Rather, the system reminds ma of the "an eye for an eye" idea of revenge that was practiced first for base emotional motives and later on justified by the idea that brutal treatment would serve as deterrant, which has since been disproven.

I don't agree with a judical system that is still practicing revenge rather than justice...

Since it's proven to not work as a deterrant, it's simple vengenace. Not even really intelligent vengeance either - if you really only cared about retributive justice, you'd make them suffer in jail, not give them an easy way out. The only arguement I would say has any persuasiveness is that it costs far far less money than holding in prison for life, but since you need to make absolutely sure that they are guilty before killing them, it costs more to execute a criminal than lock them up.

Mind you, prisons have being proved to plain just not work in reforming convicts, so that alternative isn't exactly great.

It is all about the end result, grasshoper. To kill for greed is a criminal offense. To kill so someone may not repeat that crime is deterring.[in the eyes of the Government and State Legislators ]

However : My opinion is much the same of the two above me, so long as they are not part of the majority [ killers/ dealers ] in a certain jail, they should have to suffer it out.

The only arguement I would say has any persuasiveness is that it costs far far less money than holding in prison for life, but since you need to make absolutely sure that they are guilty before killing them,



Yup, because you dont need to be proven guilty to serve a jail sentence. [ :rolleyes: ]

it costs more to execute a criminal than lock them up.

Yup, costs a lot more to inject a needle, or a volley of bullets, then to maintain a prison and feed convicts..with tax dollars.

Why don't we just offer the death penelty for all crimes?

I have a feeling the crime rate would drsticly decrease.

Why don't we just offer the death penelty for all crimes?

I have a feeling the crime rate would drsticly decrease.

Sure, because the countries that have the death penalty have the lowest crime rates... :rolleyes:

Why don't we just offer the death penelty for all crimes?

I have a feeling the crime rate would drsticly decrease.

Would it though?

Or would it just make people committing minor crimes, like house breaking, more likely to kill any potential witnesses to try to avoid getting caught?

The main problem I have with capital punishment is that the judicial system isn't perfect and mistakes can be and are made. The death penalty is final, once you've killed an innocent man by mistake you can't undo it. Yes years in prison can be (almost certaintly will be) traumatic as well but at least if they found not be guitly after all they are given another shot at life.

My gut reaction is that scum who rape children and murder others should go to the gallows but for the sake of those wrongly convicted of these crimes I don't think anyone should practice the death penatly in a civil society.

I can't help but wonder if it was reintroduced, if would it bring any benefits besides ensuring the criminal never offended again and saving the taxpayers money by not having to cover the costs of imprisoning him/her for the 10 to 20 years a murderer serves on average in this country.

Then there is the question of martyrdom for the executed. If Saddam Hassain for example is executed, wouldn't that just turn him into a martyr and make his name a rallying cry. Wouldn't life locked behind bars be worse for a man like him than a quick, clean death?

I don't know this for sure, but believe myself that the Oaklahoma bomber insisted on his execution being carried out without appeals because he wanted to become a martyr to his cause.

I'm torn on this subject. My head says the death penalty is justice and the worst murderers deserve nothing less. My heart says the death penalty is nothing but legal vengence and murder in its own right. I used to be firmly against it, but now am starting to feel that in some cases, its justified.

I'm wondering what others think of the death penalty and if it really has an impact on reducing crime. I'm hoping to see enough opinions on both sides, and inbetween, in this thread to make up my own mind on this subject.

I'm totally against death penalty for moral, religious and justice reasons. The state should become a murderer in order to punish a murderer? That's just ill.

You're right with Saddam and the Oclahoma Bomber. Death penalty in these cases causes/caused martyrs. And, by the way: Compare states with and without death penalty, even inside the USA. No statistic shows that death penalty makes a country more safe.
And, by the way: Remember the "eye for an eye"-quote of Mahatma Gandhi ;-)

My gut reaction is that scum who rape children and murder others should go to the gallows

Stop right there, you favor a quick death for a murderer or a child rapist over having them raped for - say - 20 years in prison?

Then there is the question of martyrdom for the executed. If Saddam Hassain for example is executed, wouldn't that just turn him into a martyr and make his name a rallying cry. Wouldn't life locked behind bars be worse for a man like him than a quick, clean death?


I think people want to make sure hes gone and that he has no chance of getting out.. :confused: As for being a rally cry - they already have one they hide behind - Islam.

Australia doesn't have the death penalty anymore, and the last execution here was in the late 60s or early 70s (can't quite remember). There is a growing call for it to be reintroduced however, especially after crimes like the Port Arthur shooting. I can't help but wonder if it was reintroduced, if would it bring any benefits besides ensuring the criminal never offended again and saving the taxpayers money by not having to cover the costs of imprisoning him/her for the 10 to 20 years a murderer serves on average in this country.


Does it really save money? Its not like they tax you less, they just divert that extra money to something different. Frankly - I like the idea of paying taxes to make criminals suffer.


I don't know this for sure, but believe myself that the Oaklahoma bomber insisted on his execution being carried out without appeals because he wanted to become a martyr to his cause.

:confused: What cause? Did he ever actually have one? The Russians wouldn't let him into the country, if I remember right... [ thats a new low ].

And, by the way: Remember the "eye for an eye"-quote of Mahatma Gandhi ;-)

You got me with that :D.

The problem is when I think of people like this monster...

Leonard Fraser (http://www.mako.org.au/pedofraser.html)

and can't help feeling that by their actions, the worst criminals don't deserve a second chance. This guy is under indefinate sentence, but knowing the Australian justice system, he will get out eventually.

I'm totally against death penalty for moral, religious and justice reasons. The state should become a murderer in order to punish a murderer? That's just ill.


I completely agree. For the state to both consider killing by citizens illegal and then to endorse it by practising it itself is just a strange mixed message to be sending out.

If it isn't vengeance, then what is it? What other purpose could the death penalty possible serve?

The main problem I have with capital punishment is that the judicial system isn't perfect and mistakes can be and are made. The death penalty is final, once you've killed an innocent man by mistake you can't undo it. Yes years in prison can be (almost certaintly will be) traumatic as well but at least if they found not be guitly after all they are given another shot at life.

I agree, and this is an important point.

A couple of threads in the UN forum got me thinking about the death penalty and what sort of impact it really has on crime rates. It also made me wonder if the death penalty is really justice, or just a barbaric form of vengence.

Australia doesn't have the death penalty anymore, and the last execution here was in the late 60s or early 70s (can't quite remember). There is a growing call for it to be reintroduced however, especially after crimes like the Port Arthur shooting. I can't help but wonder if it was reintroduced, if would it bring any benefits besides ensuring the criminal never offended again and saving the taxpayers money by not having to cover the costs of imprisoning him/her for the 10 to 20 years a murderer serves on average in this country.

Then there is the question of martyrdom for the executed. If Saddam Hassain for example is executed, wouldn't that just turn him into a martyr and make his name a rallying cry. Wouldn't life locked behind bars be worse for a man like him than a quick, clean death?

I don't know this for sure, but believe myself that the Oaklahoma bomber insisted on his execution being carried out without appeals because he wanted to become a martyr to his cause.

I'm torn on this subject. My head says the death penalty is justice and the worst murderers deserve nothing less. My heart says the death penalty is nothing but legal vengence and murder in its own right. I used to be firmly against it, but now am starting to feel that in some cases, its justified.

I'm wondering what others think of the death penalty and if it really has an impact on reducing crime. I'm hoping to see enough opinions on both sides, and inbetween, in this thread to make up my own mind on this subject.


For me, the death penalty is vengance and murder. That is why I oppose it!

A couple of threads in the UN forum got me thinking about the death penalty and what sort of impact it really has on crime rates. It also made me wonder if the death penalty is really justice, or just a barbaric form of vengence.

Australia doesn't have the death penalty anymore, and the last execution here was in the late 60s or early 70s (can't quite remember). There is a growing call for it to be reintroduced however, especially after crimes like the Port Arthur shooting. I can't help but wonder if it was reintroduced, if would it bring any benefits besides ensuring the criminal never offended again and saving the taxpayers money by not having to cover the costs of imprisoning him/her for the 10 to 20 years a murderer serves on average in this country.
:D
Then there is the question of martyrdom for the executed. If Saddam Hassain for example is executed, wouldn't that just turn him into a martyr and make his name a rallying cry. Wouldn't life locked behind bars be worse for a man like him than a quick, clean death?

I don't know this for sure, but believe myself that the Oaklahoma bomber insisted on his execution being carried out without appeals because he wanted to become a martyr to his cause.

I'm torn on this subject. My head says the death penalty is justice and the worst murderers deserve nothing less. My heart says the death penalty is nothing but legal vengence and murder in its own right. I used to be firmly against it, but now am starting to feel that in some cases, its justified.

I'm wondering what others think of the death penalty and if it really has an impact on reducing crime. I'm hoping to see enough opinions on both sides, and inbetween, in this thread to make up my own mind on this subject.

Use all death row inmates in Gladiatorial Games. Then the ones that win face the lions, tigers and bears OH MY. If for some reason they survive the animals then you put a 10 cent bullet in his brain. Problem solved.
Upside: money from ticket sales, money from concessions, fun for the whole family, and people will think twice about commiting violent crimes that my result in death.
Downside: absolutly none.
This is not a joke.

I can't spell, and am the first to admit that :)

I don't know about the barbaric part. Doesn't taking the life of a criminal, even a serial killer who may deserve it, just make the state as bad as the person they are killing, so couldn't that be seen as barbaric?

Thats the main part I am having a problem with. A murderer takes the life of someone against the will of the victim. In execution, the state takes the life of someone against the will of the victim. The only difference is one killing breaks a law, the other is done under the protection of the law. Killing is killing, isn't it?

It depends on the purpose of the killing
In the case of the case of the serial killer it could be to stop him.
As for the latter, the first would be murder while by the state is merely killing.
While both involve an intent to kill, the state would not desire to kill, it would trial the person first.

I think the death penalty should be reintroduced for certain murders, rapes and child molestations.It should require more evidence, and greater certainity than the american judicial system.
Look at the West Memphis Three (ww.wm3.org)
or Tookie Williams (www.tookie.com)
I think the best idea would be a 'judicial lock' where a set amount of jurors would need to agree to it and 'unlock' the death penalty. Certain crimes or number of crimes could inflict a death sentence, similar to a three strikes system, for serial re-offenders, especially paedophiles.

There are reasons for murderers to escape punishment and rapists to recieve lesser sentences, but there is no true reason or excuse for child molestation

Australia?

Why not combine a reintroduction of the death penalty with the new sedition laws?

Hmm...
Might be interesting.

:rolleyes:

I really don't actually see the purpose of the death penalty. It doesn't lower the crime rate, it is more expensive than life imprisonment and what if you execute a innocent man? I'm sure a pardon won't make them feel that much better. The death penalty is just a way for the state to give up on people.

Australia?

Why not combine a reintroduction of the death penalty with the new sedition laws?

Hmm...
Might be interesting.

:rolleyes:

Please don't give Howard ideas :(.

He's managing to screw this country over enough as it is.

The only problem with this subject is both sides have good arguements. Perhaps if a life sentence meant just that. No parole for any reason and those who received life served life, the death sentence wouldn't be needed.

No parole for any reason and those who received life served life, the death sentence wouldn't be needed.
Although ultimately (apart maybe from moral reasons) the effect would be the same. It would still be revenge.

I think that prison terms should more closely look at how long a person is still a threat to others. It is possible for most criminals to become normal members of society. When this is impossible, I think keeping them in jail for their whole lives is justified.

Stop right there, you favor a quick death for a murderer or a child rapist over having them raped for - say - 20 years in prison?


I find it odd when I hear arguments like this.

On one hand someone else in this thread was saying for the government to legally kill someone is sick. Yet this argument (which I've seen many people argue) is that 20 years in jail is much worse than death and perhaps I'd agree.

Not sure where I lie, but I see one point like "Death isn't enough" and another "how dare the government do that".

Ultamatly I'd swing for pro. I mean if we can't feel sure our legal system works than the country has much worse problems than wrongly sentancing a handful of people to death. As for the "we won't get the money back" point, I'm sure the government might put the savings in education or heathcare :)

Killing is killing, isn't it?

Or is it? That question seems to be the first gut reaction. But do many hold that "killing is killing", or can we see killing as only being wrong defined by the circumstances surounded by the death of one person at the hand of another? Would you hold the death of a rapist who was killed by his victim in the process of being attacked to the same penalty as that of a serial murderer who has lured his victim to their death? In the sense, most of the societies will not be able to unequivicably say "killing is killing" and say all forms of "killing" are wrong. Indeed, that we recognize distinctions in defining the legality and illegality of particular acts which may lead to the death of another; further defining illegal killing (murder) as a more specific case that mere "killing".... Thus while killing may be killing; and murder is killing; killing is not necessarily murder. Rendering the end questions "Killing is killing, isn't it" moot as a response to defining the legitimacy of Capital Punishment.

Australia doesn't have the death penalty anymore, and the last execution here was in the late 60s or early 70s (can't quite remember). There is a growing call for it to be reintroduced however, especially after crimes like the Port Arthur shooting. I can't help but wonder if it was reintroduced, if would it bring any benefits besides ensuring the criminal never offended again and saving the taxpayers money by not having to cover the costs of imprisoning him/her for the 10 to 20 years a murderer serves on average in this country.

Australia, eh?

Might be curious to see what happens when one combines the new sedition laws with such penalty.

:rolleyes:

Thus while killing may be killing; and murder is killing; killing is not necessarily murder. Rendering the end questions "Killing is killing, isn't it" moot as a response to defining the legitimacy of Capital Punishment.
When is killing someone murder?
According to German law, several circumstances have to be present in the killing. One of them is premeditation, i.e. the actual wish to kill the victim has to be there. Another one is base motivation, i.e. it is done for e.g. selfish reasons.

If a vengeful state plans to kill a convict it premeditation and base motivation = state murder.

Oh, and the death penalty is definitely not a deterrent. Anyone who doesn't believe so should habve a look at crimes and death penalty in 19th century England.

But then I don't really think we have become civilised societies at all.

. As for the "we won't get the money back" point, I'm sure the government might put the savings in education or heathcare :)

Yup, and Bush will hold a rap concert.[:rolleyes:]

Savings? Seriously.. my government doesn't understand that word.

At least it clears prison space! :eek:

I disagree with the death penalty for two reasons.

Firstly, I don't see what gives he State the right to kill somebody. The State (in a democratic country) derives its authority from the people, but I don't think anyone has the right to take another person's life unless they are directly threatened. The State should not be allowed to say who lives and who dies.

Secondly, as mentioned by others, the criminal justice system does get it wrong and one executed innocent person is one to many for me.


I think the death penalty should be reintroduced for certain murders, rapes and child molestations.It should require more evidence, and greater certainity than the american judicial system.

If the evidence is not certain in the first place, then they should not be convicted at all. A high burden of proof is always required in criminal law because even sending someone to prison is still removing someone's freedom and that is serious.

I disagree with the death penalty for two reasons.

Firstly, I don't see what gives he State the right to kill somebody. The State (in a democratic country) derives its authority from the people, but I don't think anyone has the right to take another person's life unless they are directly threatened.

A well made point



Secondly, as mentioned by others, the criminal justice system does get it wrong and one executed innocent person is one to many for me.


If the evidence is not certain in the first place, then they should not be convicted at all. A high burden of proof is always required in criminal law because even sending someone to prison is still removing someone's freedom and that is serious.

I very much agree. Yes, the criminal Justice system does need to punish people, but this should not be for revenge, more to deter them from re-offending, and hopefully detering others from also comitting crimes.

Corporal punishment might be justifiable, (e.g. is it possible that a public flogging so everyone can see what you get for comitting crimes would work?), but not killing.

Does it serve justice? How so?

Is it for revenge? Most likely. And if I take a look at some posts in this and several other threads, then I think that there's also a good bit of sadism involved.

It's also unimaginative.

I very much agree. Yes, the criminal Justice system does need to punish people, but this should not be for revenge, more to deter them from re-offending, and hopefully detering others from also comitting crimes.


Who's talking about revenge? Honestly? Us Pro-Death Penalty merely make the point that if someone kills a bunch of members of society, they should either be punished for life in prison or be stopped permanently. Its really the attitude at which you look at it, if you think " he killed her, so lets kill him! " then your correct, its revenge. If you think " Hes killing alot of us and wont stop unless we contain or get rid of him " then its ..bleh I dunno?

However, If you want to talk about " deterring " people, Hang criminals from freeway overpases, I betcha the crime rates drop massively.

I'm wondering what others think of the death penalty and if it really has an impact on reducing crime. I'm hoping to see enough opinions on both sides, and inbetween, in this thread to make up my own mind on this subject.

We have the death penalty in the US, and our violent crime rate has plummeted 63 percent in the past 10 years. Not saying those are directly connected, but between our mandatory sentencing, death penalty, and 35 states liberalizing the licensing of concealed carry firearms, and an increase by 50 percent in the number of firearms, we appear to have an armed populace and easy-fill jails, and an express lane at the death chamber (3 years or less in Texas and Virginia!)

But that's not why I like the death penalty. I like it because I'm making sure that no bleeding heart will release the criminal years from now, and the criminal will never be able to do it again (even in prison).

Call it "just making sure". Oh, and BTW, executing people in Texas and Virginia costs far less than it used to - it only gets expensive if you allow people to keep appealing for 25 years.

Stop right there, you favor a quick death for a murderer or a child rapist over having them raped for - say - 20 years in prison?

To be honest yes. I dunno about you but I'm not into sadism, arrogant as it sounds I like to think of myself as being better than people who kill, rape or torture others.

We have the death penalty in the US, and our violent crime rate has plummeted 63 percent in the past 10 years.

OK, first of all I call you on that statistic. Where did you find that the crime rate plummeted by 63% in the past 10 years? Isn't that contrary to everything your politicians try to tell you, i.e. that it became more dangerous to live in the US?

Secondly:
"BJS Report Finds Murder Rate Unchanged
In the latest National Crime Victimization Survey, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that the U.S. murder rate for 2003 was about 5.6 per 100,000 persons, unchanged from 2001 and 2002. Of the victims of murder, approximately 49% were white and 49% were black. (DPIC note: While the report found that the race of victims is evenly split nationally, victims in death penalty cases are mostly white (about 81%)). In murder cases, 76% of the offenders were known to the victim, and 24% of offenders were strangers. Firearms were used in 71% of murders and homicides were mostly intraracial (victim and offender of same race). The most cited circumstance leading to murder was an argument (28%). Read the full report. (Bureau of Justice Statistics Criminal Victimization, 2003, (September 2004)). Even though the 2001-2003 murder rate remained steady, death sentences continued their five-year decline in 2003."
(taken from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167#STUDIES)

Sorry, but there is not a single bit of serious (i.e. scientific) research that proves conclusively that the death sentence is a deterrent.

Try again.

Oh, and from that same site:

"FBI Report Reveals Murder Rate Rise in the South
According to the FBI's Preliminary Uniform Crime Report for 2002, the murder rate in the South increased by 2.1% while the murder rate in the Northeast decreased by almost 5%. The South accounts for 82% of all executions since 1976; the Northeast accounts for less than 1%. Read the report. (FBI Preliminary Uniform Crime Report 2002, June 16, 2003).


Four new studies on deterrence throw further doubt that there is any deterrent effect from sentencing people to death or executing people for homicide. The studies did find support for a brutalization effect. (RECAP Newsletter, National Death Penalty Developments, 12/99)"

Should there be death penalty for torture?

I'm totally against death penalty for moral, religious and justice reasons. The state should become a murderer in order to punish a murderer? That's just ill.

You're right with Saddam and the Oclahoma Bomber. Death penalty in these cases causes/caused martyrs. And, by the way: Compare states with and without death penalty, even inside the USA. No statistic shows that death penalty makes a country more safe.
And, by the way: Remember the "eye for an eye"-quote of Mahatma Gandhi ;-)

It's a good thing Ghandi was trying his stuff against the British, because had he done that to the Nazis or Soviets he would be dead in the basement of a police station within a week.

OK, first of all I call you on that statistic. Where did you find that the crime rate plummeted by 63% in the past 10 years? Isn't that contrary to everything your politicians try to tell you, i.e. that it became more dangerous to live in the US?


Now eat your own words

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wuvc01.txt

"Estimates from the National Crime Victimization Survey
(NCVS)indicate that between 1993 and 2001 approximately
26% of the average annual 8.9 million violent victimizations
were committed by offenders armed with a weapon. About 10%,
or 846,950 victimizations each year, involved a firearm.

From 1993 through 2001 violent crime declined 54%; weapon
violence went down 59%; and firearm violence, 63%."

Oh, and from that same site:

"FBI Report Reveals Murder Rate Rise in the South
According to the FBI's Preliminary Uniform Crime Report for 2002, the murder rate in the South increased by 2.1% while the murder rate in the Northeast decreased by almost 5%. The South accounts for 82% of all executions since 1976; the Northeast accounts for less than 1%. Read the report. (FBI Preliminary Uniform Crime Report 2002, June 16, 2003).


Four new studies on deterrence throw further doubt that there is any deterrent effect from sentencing people to death or executing people for homicide. The studies did find support for a brutalization effect. (RECAP Newsletter, National Death Penalty Developments, 12/99)"

That should be highlighted.

That should be highlighted.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wuvc01.txt

"Estimates from the National Crime Victimization Survey
(NCVS)indicate that between 1993 and 2001 approximately
26% of the average annual 8.9 million violent victimizations
were committed by offenders armed with a weapon. About 10%,
or 846,950 victimizations each year, involved a firearm.

From 1993 through 2001 violent crime declined 54%; weapon
violence went down 59%; and firearm violence, 63%."

Now eat your own words

Why should I? Anyway, thanks for this report it will prove exceedingly useful in other discussions here on General :D

The one problem with this report is that nowhere does it state there is any connection to the death penalty, it even warns that these figures should be taken out of context:
"Caution is required when making comparisons of estimates
not explicitly discussed in this report. What may appear
to be a large difference in estimates may not test as
statistically significant at the 95%- or even the 90%
confidence level."

So sorry, although the source is bona fide, it doesn't help with your argument pro death sentence.

As I said - try again :)

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wuvc01.txt

"Estimates from the National Crime Victimization Survey
(NCVS)indicate that between 1993 and 2001 approximately
26% of the average annual 8.9 million violent victimizations
were committed by offenders armed with a weapon. About 10%,
or 846,950 victimizations each year, involved a firearm.

From 1993 through 2001 violent crime declined 54%; weapon
violence went down 59%; and firearm violence, 63%."

Let's summarize:

Violent crime in general went down (both in states with and without death penalty), but the murder rate in states with death penalty went up, while it went down in states without death penalty.

Let's summarize:

Violent crime in general went down (both in states with and without death penalty), but the murder rate in states with death penalty went up, while it went down in states without death penalty.

Your data is over a one year period, and mine is over a 10 year period.

I could summarize further.

Virginia has the death penalty, and employs it at a great rate. Maryland does not employ their death penalty.

For two neighboring jurisdictions (Fairfax County and Montgomery County) that have identical demographics (economically, ethnically, population size, etc) and differ only in that the one in Maryland has twice the number of police per capita, the one in Virginia has 65 percent less murder, 65 percent less violent crime.

Oh, and the people in Virginia are allowed to carry guns openly - and they do.

The death penalty and carrying guns around seems to work in Fairfax County - and being against those seems to invite criminals to Montgomery County.

I believe in the death penalty as a preventative against those who have shown they have the inclination to murder from repeating their crimes. It's not "an eye for an eye" justice nor is it vengance. It is removing a threat to society, much like putting down a vicious mad dog.

There needs to be the highest degree of certainty that the accused commited the crime and is likely to do so again.
It must be carried out with the utmost solemnity, swiftly and without passion, a
la "this is a dirty unfortunate job that must be done to protect society".

I do not believe that it is a wide deterent. But it certainly deters a particular individual who has shown he or she is willing to murder from ever doing so again.

All that being said, it is my opinion that the current situation in the US does not meet the requirements.

All that being said, it is my opinion that the current situation in the US does not meet the requirements.

It differs from state to state, so that's an overbroad generalization.

It differs from state to state, so that's an overbroad generalization.

Overall in the US there are questions of ethnic bias that I don't believe have been adequately addressed.


Furthermore, I do not believe that the general population of the US approaches the issue with the needed degree of solemnity and lack of passion.

When a governor of Texas publicly ridicules a death row prisoner's appeal (as George W. Bush did in the September 1999 Talk Magazine interview with Tucker Carlson regarding Karla Faye Tucker) and is then elected president, there are problems at the national level.

Overall in the US there are questions of ethnic bias that I don't believe have been adequately addressed.

Furthermore, I do not believe that the general population of the US approaches the issue with the needed degree of solemnity and lack of passion.

When a governor of Texas publicly ridicules a death row prisoner's appeal (as George W. Bush did in the September 1999 Talk Magazine interview with Tucker Carlson regarding Karla Faye Tucker) and is then elected president, there are problems at the national level.

Well, there's a recent execution in Virginia of a young black man. But, they had him on video shooting a policeman who was asking for his driver's license. The policeman managed to return fire (from the ground after being hit) and hit the young man, who then finished the policeman. He took the policeman's gun and drove off wounded.

His blood (DNA) was found near the officer. There's no provocation on the video (the stop was for having no license plates). The young man shot with no warning at all. Bullets matched. He had the stolen gun on him. And the video captured it all.

He was executed after three years of appeals.

Something wrong with that process? Don't think they had enough evidence? The sentence for killing a police officer is the death penalty in Virginia - they don't care if you're black or white.

It's a good thing Ghandi was trying his stuff against the British, because had he done that to the Nazis or Soviets he would be dead in the basement of a police station within a week.


He himself is reported to have said that the British were the only power against whom he'd have considered a policy of non-violent resistance worth trying...

Here in Britain the death penalty stopped being used for murderers about 40 years ago, in the mid-1960s: The national population has increased by about 10-15% during that period, but the murder rate has more than tripled (from about 250 in the last full year when the penalty was applicable to over 800 in the latest year for which figures are available)... There might be other factors than the loss of deterrence involved, of course, but I don't see these figures as completely ruling out the possibility that it was a deterrent...

And nowadays a 'life imprisonment' sentence over here usually means only about 10 years in prison before release "on licence"... and as of a few years ago (when I read a newspaper article on the subject) about 10% of the convicted murderers who'd been turned loose in this way had then committed further murders...

As for the "execution is murder" argument, murder is defined as 'unlawful killing' whereas any execution that's properly carried out by the state's agents after due legal process is by definition legal...
As for the question of what gives a state the right to impose such a penalty, the answer is "the same thing - namely the will of a majority of its members, expressed through law &/or custom - that gives it the right to impose any other penalties for breaches of the law." You wouldn't say that because individuals aren't allowed to lock each other up (except on a consensual basis, of course ;-) the state has no right to impose prison sentences, would you? You wouldn't say that because individuals generally aren't entitled to seize each other's property the state has no right to impose fines (or taxes) would you? It's the same basic principle... The members of a society agree on a set of rules, one of the main duties of their government is punishing (or otherwise preventing) breaches of those rules, and anybody who deliberately chooses to ignore one of the rules (such as "Don't kill other members of your own people") can reasonably be held to have forfeited its protection themselves...

Presumably you do agree that crimes should be punished?
Presumably you do agree that the relative severity of the punishments imposed for different crimes should be approximately proportionate to the relative nastinesses of those crimes?
Well, I would argue that the death penalty is not only the most proportionate response to murder but the only one that's fair to the murderers' victims: If you absolutely rule out the possibility of imposing it then aren't you saying that the life of a murderer is automatically worth more than the life of whoever they killed?

Well, there's a recent execution in Virginia of a young black man. But, they had him on video shooting a policeman who was asking for his driver's license. The policeman managed to return fire (from the ground after being hit) and hit the young man, who then finished the policeman. He took the policeman's gun and drove off wounded.

His blood (DNA) was found near the officer. There's no provocation on the video (the stop was for having no license plates). The young man shot with no warning at all. Bullets matched. He had the stolen gun on him. And the video captured it all.

He was executed after three years of appeals.

Something wrong with that process? Don't think they had enough evidence? The sentence for killing a police officer is the death penalty in Virginia - they don't care if you're black or white.


If only every case were that clear (assuming you accurately represent the case), I'd have no qualms at all. Nowhere have I said the US should stop executions. We shouldn't. However, we should ensure that every execution is held to the highest standard.

To ask back, do you think it appropriate that any state official mock a death row prisoner's appeal, after the execution? Perrsonally, I find it an appaling character flaw, at best.

If only every case were that clear (assuming you accurately represent the case), I'd have no qualms at all. Nowhere have I said the US should stop executions. We shouldn't. However, we should ensure that every execution is held to the highest standard.

To ask back, do you think it appropriate that any state official mock a death row prisoner's appeal, after the execution? Perrsonally, I find it an appaling character flaw, at best.

Mocking the appeal is not necessary.

However, I think a more stringent standard could easily be had.

For one, I would not allow eyewitness testimony in capital cases. They are just too unreliable - proven many times in psychological studies, but for some reason, still used in court.

But, if you have a combination of video and DNA evidence, or video and ballistic evidence, I don't have a problem making those the "express lane" appeals.

Mocking the appeal is not necessary.

However, I think a more stringent standard could easily be had.

For one, I would not allow eyewitness testimony in capital cases. They are just too unreliable - proven many times in psychological studies, but for some reason, still used in court.

But, if you have a combination of video and DNA evidence, or video and ballistic evidence, I don't have a problem making those the "express lane" appeals.

And that would make for more or less an agreement from me.

I don't oppose the death penalty. I just want it applied appropriately. And I think we agree on that. And we even seem to agree that the rules of evidence should be held at a higher standard. :)

Justice or Vengance?

Both.

When is killing someone murder?
According to German law...

Your train of thought just derailed... We're not discusing German Law. The discusion is an ethical one, and I was responding to the posit "Killing is killing, isn't it?" I know of no state which views all types of situations of one person killing another in the same light. So not all "killing" is the same. Murder itself only exists by law... And as such only exists in the legal state of the act.

Thus, only the state, defining the laws, defines the material facts which will relate the killing of another to an act of "murder". Thus when attempting to ethically define particular acts, and thus define the direction the law should take, existing law has no bearing on the matter.

To be honest, I do not care what German Law says, because German LAw is meaningless.

My response was to the illegitimate question "Killing is killing, isn't it..." and a total refutation of the prospect of that question as moot... Because no one actually believes "killing is killing..." and thus, all acts resulting in the death of another person are classed together. In this sense, your response backed up my own point in the manner, illustrating that your state as well, does not view all forms of "killing" in the same light. Since it treats the premeditated "killing" of another person unlawfully, in a different light than cases where there is no premeditation.

The first question to ask is "what seperates justice from vengeance."

All retributive justice is basically 'vengeful,' though most would argue it is also just.

The first question to ask is "what seperates justice from vengeance."

All retributive justice is basically 'vengeful,' though most would argue it is also just.

Exactly, when viewing "justice", people are generally flipping to principles of equity... However, a persons views of equity can also be swayed by their view of the purpose of criminal law... Whether criminal law's primary purpose is to punish or rehabilitate.... It is also going to be swayed by the person's viewpoint of "killing"; as in where they draw the line between the lawful killing of one person by another, and the unlawfull killing of one person by another.

I read a quote about the death penalty for people who kidnap children, rape them, then kill them. It said:
"The lucky ones got the death penalty. The ones in states WITHOUT death penalties went to prison, where they discover what the armed robbers think about child molesters."
Paraphrased from The Bear and the Dragon by Tom Clancy.

Maybe it would be mercy to kill them, rather than condemn them to an eternity of abuse and hatred at the hands of armed robbers. Perhaps the worse punishment is life without possibility of parole.

Thanks for your responses everyone. You've all been making good points, whether for or against the death penalty.

I guess what a person thinks about this really is a personal thing. After reading the posts in this thread, I'm starting to lean back to the vengenance side and believe there are better ways.

Life in prison keeps the criminal off the street and makes sure they never do it again, just as the death penalty does. Only thing is in nations like mine, life in jail needs to start meaning life. Not just 10 or 20 years.

Your train of thought just derailed... We're not discusing German Law.

I know, but the reason I quoted it is because in Germany murder is a lot clearer defined than in a lot of other countries and because it has an ethical element.

I debated here wether I think that a state execution fulfills the term of state murder and I think it does. Not according to German law (which here is indeed not the topic) but according to my definition of murder, which is exemplified by the text of the according law.

To me, the point of a justice system isn't for revenge, it's for the well-being of society. A guy in a maximum-security prison isn't a threat to anybody, and, say what you want, the only reason for killing them is revenge. Did they do something wrong? Of course they did, but they aren't a threat to anybody now, and we don't need to kill them. Killing somebody just because you can not only doesn't make sense, it's just plain wrong. Even a convicted murderer is entitled to life, and unless somebody can give me a vaild reason why they can't be allowed this right then I think it would be logical to conclude that you have just killed somebody for no reason.

I know, but the reason I quoted it is because in Germany murder is a lot clearer defined than in a lot of other countries and because it has an ethical element.

I debated here wether I think that a state execution fulfills the term of state murder and I think it does. Not according to German law (which here is indeed not the topic) but according to my definition of murder, which is exemplified by the text of the according law.

Actually, it might be more "simplistic" and clean in that aspect. But I do not think "murder", as serious as it is, should be defined in such a "Clean" and simplistic manner.

In the US there are several types of crimes involving the "unlawful killing of one person by another"...

1. First Degree Murder (Or Capital Murder); is a premeditated act... Would be classed along with your own definition.
2. Second Degree Murder; is not pre-meditated, but still an illicit act. This is any intended act of "murder" which was not planed before hand. Such as an act during an armed robery. Generally it is connected with the commision of another crime, though not necessarily.
3. Voluntary Manslaughter; not premeditated, and generally not directly intentional. Such as accidently causing someone's death during a brawl of fight. Generally connected with an intended act though.
4. Involuntary Manslaughter; not premeditated, nor generally intended. Though generally connected with the comission of another crime. Also called Vehicular Manslaughter in the case of someone driving under the influence.

Bascially 1-2 are "unlawfull killing" and 3-4 are "illegitamate killing"... Murder and Manslaughter respectively...

However, under law, (in the US) "murder" is an 'unlawfull killing of one person by another or others'... Thus, CP defined by law, is not unlawfull, and therefore not murder.

How exactly is an act, not premeditated, though through some intent, handled in German law?

Actually, it might be more "simplistic" and clean in that aspect. But I do not think "murder", as serious as it is, should be defined in such a "Clean" and simplistic manner.

In the US there are several types of crimes involving the "unlawful killing of one person by another"...

1. First Degree Murder (Or Capital Murder); is a premeditated act... Would be classed along with your own definition.
2. Second Degree Murder; is not pre-meditated, but still an illicit act. This is any intended act of "murder" which was not planed before hand. Such as an act during an armed robery. Generally it is connected with the commision of another crime, though not necessarily.
3. Voluntary Manslaughter; not premeditated, and generally not directly intentional. Such as accidently causing someone's death during a brawl of fight. Generally connected with an intended act though.
4. Involuntary Manslaughter; not premeditated, nor generally intended. Though generally connected with the comission of another crime. Also called Vehicular Manslaughter in the case of someone driving under the influence.

Bascially 1-2 are "unlawfull killing" and 3-4 are "illegitamate killing"... Murder and Manslaughter respectively...

However, under law, (in the US) "murder" is an 'unlawfull killing of one person by another or others'... Thus, CP defined by law, is not unlawfull, and therefore not murder.

How exactly is an act, not premeditated, though through some intent, handled in German law?


You're forgetting that you can be charged with capital murder in the killing of a police officer, even if you only did it on the spur of the moment (let's say an unsuspecting policeman walks in on you while you're robbing the bank and you kill him).

To me, the point of a justice system isn't for revenge, it's for the well-being of society. A guy in a maximum-security prison isn't a threat to anybody, and, say what you want, the only reason for killing them is revenge. Did they do something wrong? Of course they did, but they aren't a threat to anybody now, and we don't need to kill them. Killing somebody just because you can not only doesn't make sense, it's just plain wrong. Even a convicted murderer is entitled to life, and unless somebody can give me a vaild reason why they can't be allowed this right then I think it would be logical to conclude that you have just killed somebody for no reason.

And such your initial premise colors your later conclusions.

From my personal view, the justice system exists to dispense equity, for the purpose of societies well-being. This colors later views (like my opposition to "victimless" criminal laws)... That is, to dispense just equity between the people will cases arrise between them. Criminal law should be graded, increasing in penalty as severity of crime increases. And that the forfeiture of life of someone who has forfeited the life of another through an illegal act of malice, is forfeit; those who have stollen should be under requirement to reimburse their victims; and those who have assulted their fellow men should be subject to confinement and reimbursement as penalty.